hi,
Currently, still not open the netdp lib source code.
But could provide some hooks in netdp for user to special handle packet if need.
At 2014-09-10 05:49:22, "Aaro Koskinen" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 09:09:11AM -0700, Jeff Shaw wrote:
>> > You can find the code from the lin
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 09:09:11AM -0700, Jeff Shaw wrote:
> > You can find the code from the link: https://github.com/dpdk-net/netdp
>
> Hi zimeiw, when will you be posting the source code to github?
> I can only find a static lib and some header files.
It's BSD licensed, getting only the bi
Matthew Hall wrote:
> Alex,
>
> You rock, thanks for supplying this, I'll be sure to use it along with
> upstream changes from BSD to get a friendlier license for users of my code,
> whoever they might eventually be.
>
> If I forked this from you and updated it to the latest code periodically f
Matthew Hall wrote:
> The pflua guys made a user-space copy of Linux BPF JIT. I'm planning to use
> that because it was almost as fast as pflua with a lot fewer usage headaches
> and dependencies.
Ah, I see.
> I'm making an MIT licensed app... so it isn't an issue for me personally if
> there
Jim Thompson wrote:
> BPF JIT, or even pflua[1] should be straight-forward to put on top of DPDK.
> (It?s straight-forward to do on top of netmap.)
>
> jim
>
> [1] https://github.com/Igalia/pflua-bench
Glad to see LuaJIT here. I hope to DPDK will eventually add support for
LuaJIT.
Alex
#You can?t sell the source, you have to make it available, either with the
binary, or to anyone who asks#
But I didn't tell I want to sell it, and I open all the source
On Sep 9, 2014 6:26 PM, "Jim Thompson" wrote:
> Then you don?t understand licensing.
>
> the GPL has a requirement that you mak
The licensing worms prevent IMHO only selling the source code, although,
porting may be useful
On Sep 9, 2014 5:54 PM, "Stephen Hemminger"
wrote:
> Porting Linux stack to DPDK opens up a licensing can of worms.
> Linux code is GPLv2, and DPDK code is BSD. Any combination of the two
> would end up
hi,
netdp stack use rte_mbuf directly, so no packet copied from DPDK port queue to
netdp stack. netdp forwarding performance is same as FreeBSD.
At 2014-09-09 02:20:16, "Matthew Hall" wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 08:49:44AM +0800, zimeiw wrote:
>> I have porting major FreeBSD tcp/ip st
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 10:30:01PM +0100, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> sys/net/bpfjit.c in NetBSD should be very easy to adapt to Linux.
> I was often testing it on Linux in userspace (without mbuf support).
> At the moment, I'm only allowed to work on some NetBSD projects and
> I can't adapt bpfjit
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 08:00:32AM -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
> BPF JIT, or even pflua[1] should be straight-forward to put on top of DPDK.
> (It?s straight-forward to do on top of netmap.)
>
> jim
The pflua guys made a user-space copy of Linux BPF JIT. I'm planning to use
that because it was
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:54:19AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Porting Linux stack to DPDK opens up a licensing can of worms.
> Linux code is GPLv2, and DPDK code is BSD. Any combination of the two would
> end up
> being covered by the Linux GPLv2 license.
It would be a can of worms for a cl
Matthew Hall wrote:
> However despite this issue, there are some cases where the Linux stack is
> greatly superior to the BSD one although normally the opposite is the case...
> AF_NETLINK for configuring 10,000+ IP addresses, especially for L4-L7
> performance testing, would be one possible exa
:30 PM
> > To: Matthew Hall
> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] TCP/IP stack for DPDK
> >
> > I've ported the Linux kernel TCP/IP stack to user space and integrated
> with
> > DPDK, the source and documentation and the roadmap will be pub
I've ported the Linux kernel TCP/IP stack to user space and integrated with
DPDK, the source and documentation and the roadmap will be published (and
announced) within few days.
Regards,
Vadim
On Sep 9, 2014 9:20 AM, "Matthew Hall" wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 08:49:44AM +0800, zimeiw wrote:
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 08:49:44AM +0800, zimeiw wrote:
> hi,
>
>
> I have porting major FreeBSD tcp/ip stack to dpdk. new tcp/ip stack is based
> on dpdk rte_mbuf, rte_ring, rte_memory and rte_table. it is faster to
> forwarding packets.
>
> Below feature are ready:
>
> Netdp initialize
> E
hi,
I have porting major FreeBSD tcp/ip stack to dpdk. new tcp/ip stack is based
on dpdk rte_mbuf, rte_ring, rte_memory and rte_table. it is faster to
forwarding packets.
Below feature are ready:
Netdp initialize
Ether layer
ARP
IP layer
Routing
ICMP
Commands for adding, deleting, showing IP
Then you don?t understand licensing.
the GPL has a requirement that you make one of two offers:
The fourth section for version 2 of the license and the seventh section of
version 3 require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are
accompanied by a copy of the source code, or a wri
> On Sep 9, 2014, at 5:16 AM, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
>
> Matthew Hall wrote:
>> However despite this issue, there are some cases where the Linux stack is
>> greatly superior to the BSD one although normally the opposite is the
>> case...
>> AF_NETLINK for configuring 10,000+ IP addresses, e
Porting Linux stack to DPDK opens up a licensing can of worms.
Linux code is GPLv2, and DPDK code is BSD. Any combination of the two would
end up
being covered by the Linux GPLv2 license.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Vadim Suraev
wrote:
> I've ported the Linux kernel TCP/IP stack to user spa
-dev] TCP/IP stack for DPDK
IMHO, since GPL is more restrictive so the source must remain open
On Sep 9, 2014 9:39 AM, "Zhang, Helin" mailto:helin.zhang at intel.com>> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org<mailto:dev-bounces at d
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vadim Suraev
> Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 2:30 PM
> To: Matthew Hall
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] TCP/IP stack for DPDK
>
> I've ported the Linux kernel T
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 06:47:48AM +, Zhang, Helin wrote:
> That means your great works under GPL/LGPL license will not occur in DPDK
> main line, as it is always BSD license.
>
> Regards,
> Helin
However despite this issue, there are some cases where the Linux stack is
greatly superior to
> On Sep 8, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Matthew Hall wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 08:49:44AM +0800, zimeiw wrote:
>> I have porting major FreeBSD tcp/ip stack to dpdk. new tcp/ip stack is based
>> on dpdk rte_mbuf, rte_ring, rte_memory and rte_table. it is faster to
>> forwarding packets.
>
> He
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 08:49:44AM +0800, zimeiw wrote:
> I have porting major FreeBSD tcp/ip stack to dpdk. new tcp/ip stack is based
> on dpdk rte_mbuf, rte_ring, rte_memory and rte_table. it is faster to
> forwarding packets.
Hello,
This is awesome work to be doing and badly needed to use DP
24 matches
Mail list logo
